 |
|
|
"What about those instances in which a demon manifests in a Christian? In most cases the demon entered before the believer's conversion to Christianity, and the evil spirit continued to control some part of the Christian's life because the specific occult sin was never renounced. The demon claims squatters rights."
-- Bob Larson
|
|
| |
News: The Partial Death of Abortion Rights
Posted on Wednesday, June 06 @ 20:06:00 PDT by Mickey Denen |
|
by R. Alta Charo, J.D.
On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court signaled a significant change in abortion jurisprudence. It held in Gonzales v. Carhart that a federal statute outlawing the use of "partial-birth abortion" is constitutional, even though many members of the medical community believe that the procedure should be available when it is the safest option for terminating a pregnancy. No exception was made for protecting a woman's health; only a threat to a woman's life would excuse the use of the procedure. Absent that excuse, a physician who knowingly performs an intact dilation and extraction (D&X) is subject to 2 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and monetary damages for psychological injury to the husband or parents of the pregnant woman.
Ever since the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, it has been understood that states may regulate pre-viability abortion and outlaw post-viability abortion completely, provided that the rules protect both the life and the health of the pregnant woman. And in the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court reaffirmed this principle, requiring a health exception in bans of post-viability abortion and stating that regulations regarding pre-viability abortion may not impose an "undue burden" on women. This balance reflects the view that a woman's interest in preserving her own health should be protected more strongly than any state interest in preserving intrauterine life. The latest decision of the Supreme Court alters this balance and holds that requiring women to submit to an unnecessarily dangerous version of an abortion procedure (in cases in which D&X is deemed by a physician to be the safest option) is neither an undue burden on them nor a dereliction of the state's duty to guard women's health and personal autonomy. The decision thus opens the door to revisiting any number of state and federal efforts to restrict access to abortion services.
The Supreme Court considered this very same issue 7 years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart, when it struck down a similar Nebraska state statute because it did not contain an exception to protect a woman's health and because its definition of the prohibited procedure was so vague that it could reasonably have been interpreted by doctors to include not only the D&X procedure but other more common abortion methods as well. Writing for the 5-to-4 majority in Gonzales v. Carhart, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy distinguished the federal statute from the Nebraska one, noting that it included a more precise definition of the prohibited acts.
Click here to read the entire article
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: The Partial Death of Abortion Rights (Score: 1)
 by Mick on Thursday, June 07 @ 04:47:32 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Parts of this article are rather technical. NEJM is considered by most as one of the leading medical journals in the U.S.
I am very much pro-life and have been involved in the care of pre-mature infants for almost 20 years. Many of these premature infants could have been subjected to any of these procedures if the mother had chosen to have an abortion rather than have a premature birth. On rare occasions I have cared for infants that survived "failed abortions" and fought to "keep them alive" and give them a chance at a healthy life.
That being said, there is a very disturbing quote in this article. "The Court then argued that since medical opinion is divided about D&X, Congress has the authority to invade the doctor–patient relationship and substitute blanket legislative judgment for individualized medical judgment concerning the best care for a particular patient." Does this open the door for Congress to invade other relationships? Does this open the door wider to Huxley's "Brave New World?" I am afraid so. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
| 
|
